Old Herman aint eating cricket kolbassa no matter what the United Ninnies say.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/un-wants-americans-to-cut-back-on-eating-meat-and-that-s-only-the-beginning/ar-AA1lcuxZ?ocid=mailsignout&pc=U591&cvid=9837af8b6b2546deb6672b826b83f464&ei=167
The UN agency responsible for developing recommendations for agriculture and food policy will soon publish a policy recommendation that will call on Americans to limit their consumption of meat, according to reporting by Bloomberg.
The controversial new recommendation will reportedly be released by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) during the COP28 climate change conference, an important annual meeting of the world's most powerful governments, which ends Dec. 12.
In a separate 2023 report, the FAO asserted that "the livestock sector is responsible for 14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions," and that it has an especially large impact on methane emissions. Thus, reductions in meat consumption could, FAO argues, result in less extreme climate change.
But wait before you replace your favorite burger with a crunchy cricket sandwich or lab-grown "meat." It's important that you keep in mind that, contrary to the claims of the FAO, there is absolutely no good evidence showing that if Americans were to reduce their meat consumption it would save the planet from global warming.
For starters, even if you believe that the methane produced by animals commonly eaten by American consumers is contributing to a climate change crisis — and there are plenty of scientists who do not — data from the EPA shows that methane accounts for a small proportion of total greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture-related methane emissions make up an even smaller proportion.
Second, total U.S. methane emissions have been in decline for three decades. In fact, from 1990 to 2021, industrial methane emissions, which includes agriculture, decreased by nearly 14% in the United States.
Third, although U.S. methane emissions related to agriculture have increased in recent decades, the increase has been modest (5.7% since 1995), and in recent years, emissions have been trending downward. There was a slight reduction in agriculture-related methane emissions from 2018 to 2021 in the United States, the most recent year for which data are available.
Fourth, there are many other countries that have experienced significant increases in methane, most notably China. China's methane emissions have skyrocketed over the past 30 years. From 1990 to 2021, they increased a whopping 75%, and they remain substantially higher than US emissions.
Even if Americans were to stop eating meat entirely, the reduction in methane would be more than offset by China's future increases in methane emissions, likely within just a few years.
All the available evidence shows that if Americans were to cut meat consumption, it would not cause the average global temperature to fall. Why, then, is the UN so keen on keeping meat off Americans' dinner plates?
Unfortunately, in recent decades, many UN agencies have been overtaken by environmental radicals, men and women who have promoted one extreme "green" agenda after another, and the problem is only going to get worse in the near future.
From that same article.
This year's globalist climate agenda might be fixated on meat, but next year's planned UN agenda would, if fully enacted, completely transform every part of your life.
In September 2024, the United Nations will host a "Summit of the Future." The highlight of the event will be a new "Pact for the Future," an international agreement that will serve as the culmination of a multi-year UN project called "Our Common Agenda."
Although all the final details of the pact have yet to be decided, the UN has already formally published many of its goals for the new agreement, including a plan to develop a "global code of conduct" for the internet and social media, bans on "misleading" information, the further development of a global ESG social credit scoring system, and costly, sweeping environmental programs.
The UN's "Protect Our Planet" commitment is particularly worrisome. It would establish an economically catastrophic "net-zero" commitment for global CO2 emissions, overhaul global agriculture and food systems so that they align with environmental goals, and pledge to reverse biodiversity loss, thereby limiting or eliminating the entirely human ability to expand communities beyond current boundaries.
All of these policies would have a devastating impact on human flourishing and economic prosperity, especially for highly developed countries like the United States. You might think, then, that America's president would be opposed to such policies, but you'd be wrong. The Biden administration's ambassadors to the United Nations have already praised Our Common Agenda and pledged their support toward many of its goals.
The United Nations has always been committed to expanding its own size, power and impact. But we've never seen the organization go as far off the rails as it has over the past few years.
Americans deserve a president who is willing to stand up to the UN, not kowtow to global elites and environmental radicals. Unfortunately, it appears the White House doesn't agree.
However there are too many vegans and vegetarians now too
Their insatiable appetite is beginning to destroy tropical ecosystems. Particularly avocados. Those nations can't produce enough and it's destroying their forests.
This is probably why vegetarian hominids died out a long time ago because the ecosystems couldn't sustain them thousands of years ago.
Esteemed climate scientist and world renowned economist King Chuckles says for the bargain of five trillion every year, he can save the planet without curtailing his own massive carbon footprint one bit. John Kerry agrees and will also not lower his carbon intensive lifestyle.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/king-charles-pay-5-trillion-annually-to-prevent-climate-catastrophe/ar-AA1kTPgJ
How much money do you think it will cost to save the world from a climate catastrophe?
According to King Charles III, it's about $5 trillion. Every year.
That's what the British royal told a packed conference of green advocates and state leaders on Friday who flew from all around the world – many on private jets – to meet up at the plush United Nations climate summit in Dubai, known as COP 28.
Charles did not give a breakdown of who should pay what, or where exactly the money would go, although he did say that the funds should flow to projects driving sustainable changes and away from practices that "make our world more dangerous."
Part of the funds, at least, would likely be placed in the Green Climate Fund, a United Nations fund tasked with helping developing countries mitigate and combat climate change.
On Saturday, the U.S. pledged $3 billion to the fund, on top of an additional $2 billion previously delivered by the United States. U.S. Special Envoy for Climate John Kerry announced at the summit that the United States will not build any new coal plants and will phase out existing plants to limit global warming to 1.5 Celsius.
It is unclear if Charles will be donating to the fund. The Royal family is worth $28 billion, according to Forbes.
Quote from: Herman on December 08, 2023, 11:21:14 PMEsteemed climate scientist and world renowned economist King Chuckles says for the bargain of five trillion every year, he can save the planet without curtailing his own massive carbon footprint one bit. John Kerry agrees and will also not lower his carbon intensive lifestyle.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/king-charles-pay-5-trillion-annually-to-prevent-climate-catastrophe/ar-AA1kTPgJ
How much money do you think it will cost to save the world from a climate catastrophe?
According to King Charles III, it's about $5 trillion. Every year.
That's what the British royal told a packed conference of green advocates and state leaders on Friday who flew from all around the world – many on private jets – to meet up at the plush United Nations climate summit in Dubai, known as COP 28.
Charles did not give a breakdown of who should pay what, or where exactly the money would go, although he did say that the funds should flow to projects driving sustainable changes and away from practices that "make our world more dangerous."
Part of the funds, at least, would likely be placed in the Green Climate Fund, a United Nations fund tasked with helping developing countries mitigate and combat climate change.
On Saturday, the U.S. pledged $3 billion to the fund, on top of an additional $2 billion previously delivered by the United States. U.S. Special Envoy for Climate John Kerry announced at the summit that the United States will not build any new coal plants and will phase out existing plants to limit global warming to 1.5 Celsius.
It is unclear if Charles will be donating to the fund. The Royal family is worth $28 billion, according to Forbes.
At what point will you whites grow a spine and tell your the powers that be in your countries to go fuck themselves. I won't be here and only the West will slit their own throats with this climate alarmist nonsense, but when is enough is enough?
Quote from: Shen Li on December 09, 2023, 12:27:00 AMAt what point will you whites grow a spine and tell your the powers that be in your countries to go fuck themselves. I won't be here and only the West will slit their own throats with this climate alarmist nonsense, but when is enough is enough?
When that point starts, it wont be pleasant. We'll devolve into a wild pack of murdering savages. I'm preparing.
Quote from: Shen Li on December 09, 2023, 12:27:00 AMAt what point will you whites grow a spine and tell your the powers that be in your countries to go fuck themselves. I won't be here and only the West will slit their own throats with this climate alarmist nonsense, but when is enough is enough?
We need to get control of liberty again. It won't be through the ballot box and I hope it will not be revolution like Lokmar thinks is inevitable. Perhaps citizen's initiatives/referenda.
Progressives are retards and they're outcome oriented at any cost.
They'll come down hard on citizens with all the resources at their disposal... including military.
Quote from: Thiel on December 09, 2023, 01:43:06 AMWe need to get control of liberty again. It won't be through the ballot box and I hope it will not be revolution like Lokmar thinks is inevitable. Perhaps citizen's initiatives/referenda.
In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams wrote:
"Have you ever found in history, one single example of a Nation thoroughly corrupted that was afterwards restored to virtue?... And without virtue, there can be no political liberty....Will you tell me how to prevent riches from becoming the effects of temperance and industry? Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly?...I believe no effort in favor is lost..."
Quote from: Lokmar on December 09, 2023, 04:23:44 AMIn a letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams wrote:
"Have you ever found in history, one single example of a Nation thoroughly corrupted that was afterwards restored to virtue?... And without virtue, there can be no political liberty....Will you tell me how to prevent riches from becoming the effects of temperance and industry? Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly?...I believe no effort in favor is lost..."
Americans take affluence for granted.
Quote from: Shen Li on December 09, 2023, 12:27:00 AMAt what point will you whites grow a spine and tell your the powers that be in your countries to go fuck themselves. I won't be here and only the West will slit their own throats with this climate alarmist nonsense, but when is enough is enough?
We might have to launch a full mutiny against prog governments, companies, media, and academia like old Lokmar hopes for.
At the UN meeting they had a ton of red meat available for the corrupt politicians.
Quote from: Oerdin on December 09, 2023, 11:53:07 PMAt the UN meeting they had a ton of red meat available for the corrupt politicians.
That is exactly what I assumed. Grasshoppers for us though.
Quote from: Shen Li on December 09, 2023, 12:27:00 AMAt what point will you whites grow a spine and tell your the powers that be in your countries to go fuck themselves.
It's already started.
Quote from: Adolf Oliver Bush on December 12, 2023, 08:12:03 AMIt's already started.
LMFAO! Its almost like he says this shit in a manner that's perfect for chopping up into a parody song! :crampe:
Quote from: Adolf Oliver Bush on December 12, 2023, 08:12:03 AMIt's already started.
Alex Jones will have about half of every dollar he ever makes garnished.
Quote from: DKG on December 12, 2023, 11:30:42 AMAlex Jones will have about half of every dollar he ever makes garnished.
Yeah, I know. Fucken criminal innit? That ruling against him was a classic case of over the top differential enforcement which has had precisely zero the effect we were told it was supposed to have had.
How do we know it had no effect? Take a look at the mainstream media... still getting shit wrong and completely arse backwards, still libeling and defaming regular people. Are they being prosecuted to hell and back? No, and that's why the excuse they offered for going after Alex in the manner they did was a complete crock of horse shit.
I know the real reason they did it - they're pissed off at his habit of spoilering the ruling class's shenanigans before they get a chance to realise them. Because aside from the wild and wooly hyperbole he's rightly known for, he's predicting things like mask mandates, medical experimentation, the drawing down of civil liberties on a number of fronts, you name it. And while these tend to get dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic alongside things like "turning the frogs gay", quite often these things are enacted months after he's blabbed them.
How about his prediction that Ukraine and Russia were going to tangle in the February of 2022? He was making that claim in September of the year before. Or 9/11, even going as far as to name some of the key players like Osama Bin Laden who he claimed was a CIA asset anyway. He was three months ahead of the curve on that one, shit - Osama was even being treated in a CIA hospital in the middle east less than three weeks before the world trade center went bang-fall-down.
So no, I'm not buying that justice was served when that ridiculous payout was awarded against him. In my mind there was a far more compelling reason that some people wanted him silenced and neutered, just as they wanted people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden silenced and neutered. Alex is a thorn in the Establishment's side and a particularly irksome one at that.
I'll listen to what he has to say and make up my own mind. I've seen him get far too many things right not to. And (payment processor willing), I'll kick in money to his cause at the merch table to help keep him going. Not on his supplements or storable food items so much, but things like cellphone and laptop faraday pouches that I know for a fact actually work and teeshirts that I can use to bring him to wider attention.
I want him to keep talking. The guy's a valuable resource. Plus he's entertaining, which is more than I can say for dickheads like Stephen Colbert and his dancing vaccine needles.